OK, that's fair enough. It looks like I was correct, then, in
noticing that naturalism *does* have recourse if it discovers that
life couldn't have arisen by naturalistic processes on planet Earth?
> GB>That is, it seems to me that the goal of the intelligent design
> >advocates is more ambitious than a demonstration that some
> >biological features were designed purposefully by some person--
>
> No. There is simply no way that "intelligent design" can be
> "more ambitious than a demonstration that some biological features
> were designed purposefully by some person". If you claim that
> ID is doing this, you need to supply quotes from their writings
> that they are. :-)
That's why I said 'seems to me.' No claims. :-)
> GB>I don't see how that aim is incompatible with methodological
> >naturalism, as I stated above.
>
> See above. "methodological naturalism" is *by definition* "incompatible"
> with "intelligent design". MN cannot, in principle, consider "intelligent
> design", because "naturalism" is the doctrine that nature is all there
> is:
Nope. People (and aliens) are part of nature, and are intelligent. Ergo,
intelligent design can be, and is, part of nature. This was the whole
point.
> Nancey Murphy, a philosopher and Fuller Seminary professor, agrees.
> She wrote recently in the same journal: "Science qua science seeks
> naturalistic explanations for all natural processes. Christians and
> atheists alike must pursue scientific questions in our era without
> invoking a Creator.... Anyone who attributes the characteristics of
> living things to creative intelligence has by definition stepped into
> the arena of either metaphysics or theology." (Murphy N., "Phillip
> Johnson on Trial: A Critique of His Critique of Darwin,"
> Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 45, no. 1, 1993,
> 33, in Meyer S.C., "The Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent:
> Can There be a Scientific `Theory of Creation'?" in Moreland J.P.
> ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
> Ill., 1994, p69)
Both you and Nancey should know better, it seems to me. As I pointed
out (if I remember correctly, it may have been in this post), science
'qua science' does *not* seek naturalistic explanations for all processes.
The process of constructing axe heads is not considered 'naturalistic'
in the sense of not being intelligently driven, but is a crucial part
of dating anthropological sites and tracking the flow of human technology
in the ancient world. The point being, when we see an axe head in a
pile of rock, we all think, "Ah, ha! The axe head is *designed*. Let's
figure out who, how, why, when, etc." We don't think, "Boy, a bunch of
designed rocks!" If life on the planet turns out to be designed the
way it is, it would seem to be a trickier puzzle than axe heads. Same
goes for rocks. "Naturalistic science" is more than capable of dealing
with intelligent design when it thinks it sees a reason to appeal to
it. It sees the reason for axe heads and does so. (Could be wrong,
but that doesn't seem likely.)
[...]
> GB>(I'd better stop before I ask more about why intelligent design
> theorists are interested in *this* particular method... :-))
>
> What "method"? There is nothing unsual about recognising design. Behe
> calls it "humdrum":
The method is some sort of instantaneous (or apparently so) process
of design. That is, from what I've seen, ID people think that God
designed life and 'put it here.' That is, didn't design it by making
a few primitive cells, thinking, "Hmm. That's no way to proceed,"
making some random changes, thinking "Nope," and so forth. That is,
he didn't proceed as a 'Blind Watchmaker.' I haven't met all ID
people, though, so I'm prepared to be surprised. :-)
-Greg